Attachment 3 - Evaluation Criteria and Submission Instructions.pdf

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

FOR LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

SOLICITATION #93310020Q0005

EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS FOR AWARD

FMCS Office of Procurement and Operational Support anticipates award of a firm fixed priced purchase resulting from this solicitation to the responsible quoter whose quote, conforming to this solicitation, is deemed to be the best value to the Government. Evaluation factors include Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price. Technical Acceptability is more important than Past Performance. Non-price factors, when combined, are more important than Price. In addition, Technical Acceptability has four subfactors, including Technical Requirements Checklist, Technical Understanding, Transition Plan, Organizational Experience, and Key Personnel, which are listed in order of importance from most important to least important.

Technical Acceptability: Technical information will be evaluated using the following ratings to determine if the quoter’s submission meets the criteria listed in the Statement of Work (SOW).

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS

Rating Standard Exceptional Quote contains significant strengths and no weaknesses. The quote exceeds the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW and offers value-added methodologies for improving service that benefit the Government. The evaluator has no doubt that the quoter can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW. The quoter acknowledges risks and develops an approach that proactively identifies and mitigates risks, and looks to reduce or eliminate future risks. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Acceptable Quote contains strengths that outweigh any existing weaknesses. The quote meets the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The evaluator is confident that the quoter can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Marginal Quote contains one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. The quote does not meet all the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The evaluator has some doubt that the quoter can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable An unacceptable quote contains one or more significant weaknesses and deficiencies.

Quote fails to meet specified minimum performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The evaluator is confident that the quoter will be unable to successfully complete the required tasking. The quote does not adequately acknowledge or address risk, mitigate risk, or may actually introduce risk. Quote is unawardable.

Past Performance: Past performance information will be evaluated to determine the quoter’s ability to perform the contract successfully and the degree of performance risk associated with a quoter. FMCS will use its discretion to determine the sources of past performance information. The information may be obtained from references provided, FMCS’ knowledge of contractor performance, other Government agencies or commercial entities, or past performance databases. There are two elements of past performance. The first is to evaluate the quoter’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the quoter is to the effort stipulated in the SOW. The four levels of relevance are:

Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant. The second element of past performance is to rate the past performance information using the adjectival ratings below.

Price: Evaluated price will be the total price for the base and all option periods. NOTE: Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

In addition to the referenced provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offeror – Commercial Items, quoters shall provide the following information:

1. Technical Acceptability

A. Technical Requirements Checklist – Complete Attachment 2 – Technical Requirements Checklist.

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Rating Standard Exceptional An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Acceptable A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Marginal A Marginal rating is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

Unacceptable An Unacceptable rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the Contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

Neutral No information or references provided are not relevant. Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

B. Technical Understanding – Provide a narrative demonstrating technical understanding and approach to meeting the requirements of the SOW. The narrative should fully describe all capabilities of the proposed system. The narrative shall not exceed five (5) typed pages.

C. Transition Plan – Provide a draft transition plan, in accordance with Section 8.0 of the SOW, demonstrating how to successfully transfer all associated data and businesses processes from the FMCS’s current solution to the proposed solution. The plan shall not exceed three (3) typed pages.

D. Organizational Experience – Provide a narrative detailing the organization’s history and experience working in the federal landscape, i.e., SF182 creation, uploading of federally required documents, and reports creation. Narrative should include list of other federal customers, if applicable. The narrative shall not exceed three (3) typed pages.

E. Key Personnel – Provide resume(s) of proposed Program Manager(s) to be assigned work resulting from this solicitation. Resume(s) of personnel proposed shall not exceed two (2) typed pages.

2. Past Performance

A. Provide three (3) references under which work similar to the tasks (nature/scope, complexity and size) described in the SOW has been performed. The experience must be within the timeframe of 2017 – 2020. Experience with federal agencies is preferred.

B. Listing shall include the agency name and address, company point of contact, telephone number and e-mail address.

3. Price – Provide a single fixed price to accomplish the tasks specified in the SOW for the Base Year and each of the four (4) Option Years.

4. Remittance address, Tax Identification Number, Dunn and Bradstreet Number and Cage Code

5. Validity of quote (Please specify if the quote is valid for 30 days from solicitation response date)

The Government plans to evaluate quotes and make award without conducting discussions. As such, quoters are advised to submit their pricing quotes on the most favorable basis since the Government reserves the right to make an award on initial quotes. However, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with quoters deem to have the most highly rated quotes.

Questions regarding this RFQ must be addressed to Erika LeTourneau, eletourneau@fmcs.gov, no later than Friday, July 24, 2020.

Quotes should be submitted to Erika LeTourneau, eletourneau@fmcs.gov, no later than 3:00PM EDT, Friday, August 7, 2020. No faxed or mailed quotes will be accepted. Please reference the solicitation number on your quote. NOTE: LATE QUOTES MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR EVALUATION.

mailto:eletourneau@fmcs.gov mailto:eletourneau@fmcs.gov